it's in the back. please take them, so i don't have to carry them on the plane. the other approach would be to create an excepting for what i call biometric data. purely physical information. not looking in to someone is thinking. but only the kind of physical traits that, for example, a physical anthropologist might be interested in. that would apply to fingerprinting and arguably dna, again, something dressed in the reprint. the court didn't do that. in fact, none of the parties argued that. alternatively the court could have balanced outside the per se frame work. it may abombished the per se rule entirely. which is what, for example, yale professor has been urging for years. saying there ought to be a direct reasonable inquiry as a general matter. the court didn't do it either.